In certain situations this seems to be the case. Lenin considered this class to be very flimsy and would often go where the wind takes them. Wonder if yall have read anything interesting on this from AES states.
In certain situations this seems to be the case. Lenin considered this class to be very flimsy and would often go where the wind takes them. Wonder if yall have read anything interesting on this from AES states.
what makes me skeptical about the revolutionary character is that petite b class interests do not align with workers. a state in control of the petite b will most likely lead to a decrease in state capacity to tackle contradictions (by lowering taxes, deregulation etc.), which will just lead to international capital getting its way. i guess something like the baltics leaving the ussr? as a recent example of petite b gaining control of a small state.
Think about it like the internal contradictions between the bourgeoisie, artisans, and peasantry in the 18th century bourgeois revolutions. The primary contradiction was between the feudal lords and the Church vs the bourgeoisie et al; the fact that there were internal contradictions within the bourgeois camp is plain to see in the power struggles after the revolutions (the Jacobin factions, Montagnards, etc), but they were still a revolutionary class.
With the assumption that imperialism is the primary contradiction, it means that the national bourgeoisie can play a similar role. They’ll still be reactionary after decolonization, but they can help get you to that point.
Exactly what Fanon sketched out. This debate is why many communists argue that national liberation (NL) shouldn’t be done without a revolutionary proletarian party to push immediately after the successful NL to not allowed the PB to take over the state apparatus.
I argue, instead, that it’s still progressive even if the PB takes over, and that the next revolutionary step can be taken at a later date. So we should support PB and even some bourgeois revolution’s against imperialism in imperialized countries (determined by whether their interests are actually in contradiction to their country’s imperialized status). It sharpens the contradictions between prole and bourgeois when the Imperial one loses its sway on the imperialized society, and it sharpens the Imperial contradictions within the imperialist camp. Sometimes they just fall right back into imperialism after that (with new compradors), but it has contradiction sharpening as a result anyways. So I think the communists from my first paragraph are kinda too “ultra”
I think we need to Proletarianize the PB, a PPB operation of sorts.
More seriously though: I think currently I fall in the first camp, WRT my own country, because I think in our particular situation the petty bourgeoisie is simply too opportunistic and too enmeshed with American capital/national identity to be a genuine fighting force against colonialism.
But your point is that they aren’t useful in the fight against colonialism in your country. This just means it’s outside of the debate I was referring to. There are people who acknowledge that in some places the PB are also opposed to imperialism and willing to fight it (take Palestine), but that we shouldn’t support that because it’s not the workers party as the revolutionary party against imperialism.